h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Sorry, if the name of this article winds up being changed it won't be by my hand.

I have to think carefully about how to say this because I'm sleepless to the point of incoherence at the moment.

Regarding Yessue Ben Miriam's supposed existence or non-existence. I recognize that biblical scholars have debated this point a fair bit. My experience with biblical scholars is that they like to go out on a limb trying to offer up radical theories with very scant evidence because it helps them keep tenure, not that that matters much here I suppose. My recollection of my own studies into the matter indicates some likelihood that the man did exist. There is some independent verification of his life in, as I recall, some neo-cabalistic Judaic writings, as well as, surprisingly, some Hindu yogghic scrolls from that period (apparently his '40 days' in the wilderness included a trip to India or some such). On top of which, the oral traditions about him on which the gospels were partly, loosely based would have likely had some remote basis in fact, at least enough to confirm his authenticity as an actual human being.

As far as what he actually said and did, very few people can agree, and the view espoused in this piece is correlated from discussion with several of my profs back in my study days, some written correspondence with an ethics columnist from Toronto, and my own interpretation of the pile of study notes and exegetical essays I read back when I had the time to read up on this sort of thing. I'm pretty sure his message was something along the lines of 'I am a Son of God. I am God. I am a man. All of these terms are synonymous. You have it in you to be likewise. Stop bowing and scraping at the altar and go out and live as you were meant to.' The stuff about the miracles and substitutionary sacrifice and virgin mother got tied into the narrative later as a horde of people immediately began to misinterpret his simple message, usually after hearing the thing fifteenth-hand.

I had considered exploring some other pantheons in detail in this piece, until I realized that I could spend the rest of my life writing about various forms which human religion has taken. That wasn't really my focus here... I wanted to write about, well, 'God' I wanted to deal loosely with the history of monotheism and compare the scholarly and orthodox traditions briefly. I wanted to subtly hint at the common ground that such a notion shares with the Eastern concepts of divinity, as I find Eastern philosophy and religion quite fascinating. I wanted to tickle the reader's funnybone, but also allude to that sense of mystery that to me is the hallmark of mysticism... that feeling of significance of an idea or formula. If I seem derogatory or overly critical of people's beliefs here it is in part because I think any real discussion of 'God' has to focus the reader sharply on his assumptions about the topic and then point beyond them.

I think the astute observer will see what I'm getting at with this piece when I mention the bit about twentieth century physics... because our view of the universe is transforming before our eyes, at least if we're willing to pay attention. I might recommend watching The Meaning of Life again and paying very very close attention to what (I think, CS?) Graham Chapman says just before they decide people need to wear more hats.

this is a great entry. informative and entertaining.

G'day Twophlag Gargleblap,

First off, here is my vote for your entry being granted immediate and unamended official status. Your rejection letter stated in part that the article was "a phenomenal read" which would "create a lot of debate on site." How true. Essential elements, one would think (there's a nod for you Wandrin'star if you ever get to read this), for the model entry.

There are a lot of believers in God who do actually have a sense of humour, and who can tolerate lively debate about their beliefs as well as those of others. I don't find this article offensive, or grief-inducing. On the contrary, it is informative and stimulating. One aspect that really got me to thinking was your reference to (some) Christians "ceremoniously cannibilize" Christ. This is a novel way of drawing attention to a rite so profoundly sacred and yet so profoundly profane which deserves much more airspace.

Finally, it may just be the case that the article's failure to be accorded 'official' status could be linked to your sub-editor, the incomparable and caring Looneytunes etc. I fear he has been over-doing the Enzed singing syrup lately, and although I have been trying to persuade him to change suds, it could well be that he was a la mode when editing your article.

Look forward to learning that reason and justice has prevailed. Take care.

Walter

Walter, astute reasoning as always. I would be more than pleased to step aside of course. One thing worries me though. I might be replaced as the sub by the alcoholic Australian descendant of an Irish Catholic god-botherer who would destroy the tone of the article. Incidently who is your pick to be the first Australian president? John Clarke?

TG, as we have discussed elsewhere, I don't believe the article being written from a non-believers point-of-view should be a hindrance. The Edited Guide Entry on Vegetarians was written by a meat-eater.

One thing common to all articles written from a subjective viewpoint, as oppossed to an objective one, is that the articles generate a lot of interest and deabate.

In my humble opinion, this has to be a good thing and should be encouraged by h2g2.

In light of the rejection letter comments, it shouldn't take too much to tweak the article into acceptable form.

Loony, off to church shortly (actually a pub using the building of an ex-church)

Gooday Looneytunes,

Cobber, don't step aside: you are irreplaceable, indispensible, indomitable, incorrigible and all those other ins that I can't spell or indeed bring to mind. I want you to be MY editor: will you, please? Take care, sensitive but caring one.

Walter.

I received this nice posting in the forum for this entry.

"I don't really know where my comments fit in, so I guess I'll start my own conversation. I had fun with this and was NOT offended, although I'm a Catholic(albiet a slightly strange one). I got to this via your message for Douglas Adams, and since I'm very new to the Guide, I'm not entirely sure what you're having trouble with. But I assume that the editors think that this entry would offend religious people. Ok, maybe it would offend some. But the tone is lighthearted and at the same time sincere... and by the way, I would not have classified you as an atheist from reading this. I'm not about to change my religious views because of this article, but we could ALL do with having our beliefs challenged and explored in a way that can't help but make us smile... at least it did me. So, I guess I'm saying thanks, from one of the people someone is trying not to offend. "

It seems like I've managed to get the tone of the piece to the point where theists, nontheists, and atheists can all enjoy reading it without feeling offended or contradicted. Is there anything else I need to do to get this thing approved? Move a mountain or something?
How about it eds, scouts?

Well, if you're going to write an entry on God, moving a mountain might be...

Nah. I've been in favor of this entry from the start. It is impossible to do anything on comparative religion without stepping outside the theistic bounds of Christianity. Joseph Campbell was originally disliked for his willingness to take an outside view as well. But in the end, many people find such insights interesting and worthwhile. I'm one of them.

Nitpicky - you should remove or rephrase the bit in brackets' at the start (I could never get the hang...) - first person comments are out of place in the guide...

I think scouts at the moment are picking safe entries while they build their scouterly credentials - you may have to wait a bit before one is brave enough to recommend this one...

In the mean time you could make it easier for them by GuideMLing it - that seems to give a good impression that seems like it might make it easier... maybe... perhaps...

The Scout scheme is still getting its legs, and at the moment we're only recommending one per day. Once the rest of the old queue has been dispatched, I'm sure that number will grow, but for right now its all about working the bugs out of the system. I'm sure this will get attention, but you must have patience.

I see this thread mainly took place three or four weeks ago, but I didn't pick up on it at the time. I hope I'm not too late?

It's the editorial policy of the Guide that concerns me, as it does (some) other contributors to this thread.

I wonder if we (The Guide, collectively) are taking 'the voice of the Guide' a bit too seriously?

I am afraid that the Guide will soon develop a noticeable hole where all the subjective stuff ought to be. [And let's face it, almost everything worth thinking about is subjective to some extent.]

Is this the Hitchikers Guide to the Earth, or is it Encyclopaedia Galactica (cf. Encyclopaedia Brittanica)? To me, the editorial policy is starting to indicate the latter.

Just my perspective on this debate.

Pattern-chaser

I don't think anybody's saying subjective stuff shouldn't be in the guide -- it should be and it is. The whole question here is in regards to the "edited" guide, which *generally* focuses on material that can be factually verified. If the edited guide is to be opened to all opinion-based pieces, it would very very quickly become a bottomless pit of every Jack and Jane's opinion on every imaginable subject.

And that would be a bad thing because ......?

Well. This is a controversial entry, isn't it?

I think that an entry on god deserves a place in the Guide. I'm not sure that this is it, at least not in its current form. Not because it's poorly written - it's not. It's just too biased, even after the revisions you've evidently made. (BTW: primeval, not primaevil)

First of all, you've used the dictionary definition: "reality's supreme manifestation of itself." The dictionary bases its definition upon the assumption that god actually exists. Then you state that western religions still think of god as "the big guy in the sky." I'm not sure that this is true - take a look at the pagan forum posting.

It's misleading to say that Judaism is polytheistic. As I've always understood it, Judaism began when some Jewish guy wrote a contract (Genesis) for proper conduct between man and his god. Before, the Jewish people worshipped many gods - some imported from Babylon and Assyria, some they made up themselves. Then somebody came up with the concept that there was a god for the Jews, just like there was a god for the Babylonians, etc., and they were going to worship him. It turned out that future events supported the theory of a Jewish god - a vengeful, jealous one, evidently. But Judaism (at least in the beginning) never said that there weren't any other gods. Just that the Jews weren't supposed to worship any other gods. The other aspects of Jewish life, such as the dietary laws and cleanliness restrictions, aren't really necessary to understand the god of the Jews.

Here we come to a very biased paragraph: the one that starts "To this day, Judaism itself and its family of offshoot religions..." Yes, the weirdest of the Christian sects still believe in original sin, sin by omission, fire and brimstone if you kiss your sister, and constant penance, but most modern Christian churches don't emphasize the vengefulness of the Christian god. Jeshua was first and foremost a prophet, and presented a different view of God to the Jews. Some of the Jewish liked what he had to say, and became Christians. Their understanding of god changed, and he/she/it was regarded as more forgiving and compassionate - especially important as the Jews were busy being made slaves at the time (again.) The views of Christianity gradually changed after Jeshua's death, until he became the intermediary between god and man in heaven. Ask a Jewish man what his concept of god is sometime - I'm curious myself. As for Christ being a deity himself - I've had many arguments with my christian friends about this. There's no factual evidence to support the statement that Christ is god. The Christians will tell you that Christ was the intermediary for god on Earth - but the ambassador for the president is not the president. I think that his heading as deity really goes under the "Western Theology" subject.

Hey - I'm rambling here, when I'm trying to help out. Maybe a better approach would be less attention to the various weird stuff that happens around the concept of god in Western religions, and attack it from the angle of how god changes the behavior of man in different societies around the world. You've already made a good start by mentioning eastern mythology, and the Sumerian Tiamat. There are some new Christian sects that follow the Heinlein "thou art God" ideal.

Oh, well. I am agnostic, so I'm not offended or upset by anything you had to say. It's very difficult to present information on such a touchy topic without pissing off a number of people - but I think it's possible.

Lucinda: Actually, there is a lot of superstition in the bible (first definition). I can't remember which Jewish guy it was, but he had to hold his arms up in the air - as long as they were up in the air, the Jews were victorious. As soon as he lowered them, they would start to lose.

Ah, sweet wonderful criticism How I love to sink my teeth into thee.

"First of all, you've used the dictionary definition: "reality's supreme manifestation of itself." The dictionary bases its definition upon the assumption that god actually exists. Then you state that western religions still think of god as "the big guy in the sky." I'm not sure that this is true - take a look at the pagan forum posting"

That definition didn't come from a dictionary, although it may be found there. The definition (as mentioned in the entry) originates with the Anselmian ontological argument for God's existence, wherein God is described as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived of'. Most Western theistic scholars find this to be a generally workable definition. Of course, one may differ with it. Robert Anton Wilson defines the Western God as 'a gaseous vertebrate', which is reminiscent of the anthropologist who described humans as 'featherless bipeds'. At any rate, the ontological argument doesn't begin with the assumption of God's existence, it begins with the assumption of the existence of reality as measured by cognitive reflection, and says that divinity would conceptually lie in the Ultimate expression of such a reality. This is a view not so very far off from the Eastern doctrines of a brahmin or tao when you think about it. Contrary to what you seem to have read, I have not intended to imply that practitioners of Western religions all think of God as a big guy in the sky. I feel I made an adequate point that orthodox institutional Western theistic dogmas took a very anthropocentric view of divinity. If you disagree with this, re-read your Catholic catechism.

"It's misleading to say that Judaism is polytheistic. As I've always understood it, Judaism began when some Jewish guy wrote a contract (Genesis) for proper conduct between man and his god."

It's pretty hard to put your finger on one point and say Judaism started HERE. For a relatively long time, people tended not to keep very good records of history and so forth. The covenenant of Abraham that you refer to was certainly an important concept/event/myth/whatever in the development of Judaism, but the tenets of the Deuterocanonical school of thought still had to evolve out of something preexisting. It is very interesting to study how religion developed in human history, going all the way back to evidence of ceremonial burials dozens of millenia ago (or more), but that was not the focus of this piece. Suffice to say that most if not all monotheistic and monistic belief systems that I am aware of probably evolved from pantheistic or polytheistic cosmologies at some point in the past.

" Before, the Jewish people worshipped many gods - some imported from Babylon and Assyria, some they made up themselves. Then somebody came up with the concept that there was a god for the Jews, just like there was a god for the Babylonians, etc., and they were going to worship him."

Actually, the most convincing theory I've heard is that the Deuteronomists were just trying to vaccinate their culture against the cult prostitutes of Asherah that were spreading around the Sumerian free-thinking virus engendered by the nam-shub of Enki. Aren't you glad you asked?

" It turned out that future events supported the theory of a Jewish god - a vengeful, jealous one, evidently. But Judaism (at least in the beginning) never said that there weren't any other gods. Just that the Jews weren't supposed to worship any other gods. The other aspects of Jewish life, such as the dietary laws and cleanliness restrictions, aren't really necessary to understand the god of the Jews"

Actually, I'd have to take issue with that. The Judaic laws of right-living were deeply entwined with their religious life. When you think about it, the Deuteronimists knew just what they were one about, too. What better way to make an unruly mob of illiterates do what you tell them than to appeal to their superstitious nature and base your authority on the imagined authority belonging to the giant space-monkey in the sky? For the record, you are right that Jews accepted the existence (but not preeminence) of other cultures' dieties, and the evidence is contained right in the Pentateuch itself by numerous references.

"Here we come to a very biased paragraph: the one that starts "To this day, Judaism itself and its family of offshoot religions..."

Well, actually, I don't feel this is bias at all. Again, I refer you to the orthodox canonical works of the various faiths. They are categorically aimed at promoting one set of beliefs, values, and myths as more valuable than any other, and in every case they offer reward to their followers and punishment for their detractors. I have no value judgment to make here; I'm not saying such a thing is bad. In fact, I think poltically it's pretty astute. There are free-thinking liberal adherents to all of these faiths who detest such facets of it, but they do not reflect the 'official' set in stone values of their respective cults.

"Yes, the weirdest of the Christian sects still believe in original sin, sin by omission, fire and brimstone if you kiss your sister, and constant penance,"

Such as the Catholic church, the single most popular and widely followed Christian organization in the world, and in human history. They recently had the pope proclaim their Church as the One True Church and all other Churches as false.

" but most modern Christian churches don't emphasize the vengefulness of the Christian god. Jeshua was first and foremost a prophet, and presented a different view of God to the Jews."

They prefer not to emphasize it, but they haven't had the balls to completely distance themselves from it either. Instead, they say he's both loving and wrathful, which makes him sound a bit crazy and wonton. Perhaps the Discordians are right. When you think about it, though, a cruel and vengeful God isn't such a far-out concept, if he's any reflection of the universe he supposedly created (or vice-versa) which is, when you think about it, infinitely black, empty, cold, random, chaotic, and hostile to human existence (apart from this one tiny corner of it).

" As for Christ being a deity himself - I've had many arguments with my christian friends about this. There's no factual evidence to support the statement that Christ is god. The Christians will tell you that Christ was the intermediary for god on Earth - but the ambassador for the president is not the president. I think that his heading as deity really goes under the "Western Theology" subject"

I thought he deserved his own mention. The Western Theology section is already much longer than it properly deserves to be, as the aim of the article is chiefly to look beyond Western theism to the broader context of interesting ideas about this thing called 'God'. Mainly the bit about Jeebus is included as a reflection on the ironic futility of trying to uplift us domesticated primates beyond our rather brutal religious heritage of drinking blood and killing each other. Again, I think this is pretty clear to most readers. I did find it sort of funny though, your statement 'there's no factual evidence to support the statement that Christ is god'. I mean, no kidding, really? I thought we had him on videotape shooting fireballs out of his ass. I find myself tempted to argue here that there are no facts, period, but I refer you to my entry on critical rationalism to save myself some painful repetition. Such a statement is meaningless unless we agree on a contextual definition for the term 'God' by going back to out entymology and so forth anyways, which is one of the things this entry does.

"There are some new Christian sects that follow the Heinlein "thou art God" ideal."

They aren't new. The gnostics were one of the earliest known Christian sects, and most of the Gospels are based in part on their writings and teachings. They believed that they were pluriform aspects of God seperated from the Ultimate and sent to earth to 'learn' or to better themselves. In other words, they were drops of Tiamat's blood ( heh heh ). David Bohm, a Nobel Prize winning physicist and respected philosopher who spent some eleven years in India studying Hindu mysticism before writing his book 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' suggests something somewhat similar based on his observations in the field of quantum physics and metaphysics, and discusses what he calls 'the holographic model' of reality. Of course, the gnostics got wiped out for the heresy of going around saying intelligent things in front of Irate, right-thinking blood-drinking Catholics. Hail Eris.

By the way it was Moses, and he had to hold a staff in the air while priests held up the Ark of the Covenant. Pretty cool battle tactic if you ask me, although I think the Scots revolutionized it with the bagpipes.

I think the distinction should not so much be between objective and subjective as between the practical and the personal. There can't be any harm in being subjective about something everyone agrees is great or awful (such as Vogon poetry, to take an example from the master). The problem lies in the big topics, such as God. The article on God is waaaay too personal. I don't find it particularly offensive but it is certainly biased and shallow. It's not really informative, which is surely what writers should be aiming for.

I'd agree with biased, certainly (but then, there are plenty of highly biased entries in the Guide - check out "Cybersex" some time...). I think TG has limited his bias to more than reasonable levels, though - certainly less than a whole bunch of other edited articles.

Shallow? Well - yes - the covering of many topics is superficial - but I think that's correct. If you wanted more details on, for example, Discordianism, the thing to do would be to use this entry as a stepping point to an article on Discordianism, with an appropriate link - same for Judaism, the various Christian sects, Heinlein, etc, etc... no doubt you could write some of those yourself?

Not sure what you mean by personal - but I think it's informative - I didn't know that Judaism evolved out of polytheistic roots, for example, till I read this entry, and I count myself as vaguelly well-informed on such matters.

It would be impossible to find a written work on God that is not 'personal.' You can't take a stance of pure scientific detachment when writing about God, or else there won't be anything to write about. God is all about interpretation, and therefore there can not be a single correct truth where he/she/it is concerned. I think this article serves, in part, to point out this basic fact. As such, it has a valuable purpose that makes it worthwhile for the Guide -- bias and all.

Indeed, I would argue that any bias in the article is likely to spur real conversion about where the 'truth' actually lies. If the goal of the Guide is partly to form a common sense of understanding, then surely such a conversation would be interesting and worthwhile in its own right. By refusing to approve the entry in any form, the Guide limits conversation about it to a minority of participants. Thus, any conclusions we draw from conversations about the entry are false in the broad view of common understanding. How does this serve us?

I certainly would call the entry informative. I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who knew everything contained within it.

Well, I'm not NOT licking frogs... hee, hee.

You certainly know what you're talking about, there's no doubt about that. I'm not going to back down on the impression I got from reading your article, however. I detected a certain amount of resentment toward established religions, especially monotheistic ones. This may not have been your intent, but it sounds biased. (I read it two or three times before deciding this, by the way.)

"That definition didn't come from a dictionary, although it may be found there. The definition (as mentioned in the entry) originates with the Anselmian ontological argument for God's existence, wherein God is described as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived of'."

I read this in your entry, so I looked it up in ye olde Webster's, and it's basically the same definition. Perhaps it needs a little more clarification. It sounds complicated when you say "...the ontological argument doesn't begin with the assumption of God's existence, it begins with the assumption of the existence of reality as measured by cognitive reflection, and says that divinity would conceptually lie in the Ultimate expression of such a reality."

So, okay. We decide that reality exists because there's all this stimuli. (Rainy days, burnt toast, etc.) Then we say that if there's an ultimate deity, it must know everything that goes on. I have a problem with this already. This is why I thought the definition was biased - there's lots of Roman/Greek and Indian gods in world religion history that were often deceived by clever humans. This definition does fit with the Brahmin/Buddhist Tao of achieving nirvana - becoming one with god. It also fits the conception of the Western "big-daddy" god. But it also defines Santa Claus pretty well. (Well, he's not the ultimate conception of reality, but he does know where all the naughty girls live.)

"Contrary to what you seem to have read, I have not intended to imply that practitioners of Western religions all think of God as a big guy in the sky. I feel I made an adequate point that orthodox institutional Western theistic dogmas took a very anthropocentric view of divinity.".

I read your comment on the Norse origins of the word god, and I agree that the mainstream Western Christian religions portray god as an anthropomorphic creature. Your sentence doesn't bring that across - "...generally held notion of Divinity in Western thought tends towards a similar sort of primaevil cosmology."

It can be argued that Christianity actually worships three gods: the Father (the original god) the Son (Christ as emissary to man) and the Holy Ghost (the Spirit).

"Suffice to say that most if not all monotheistic and monistic belief systems that I am aware of probably evolved from pantheistic or polytheistic cosmologies at some point in the past." Agreed. No argument there.

"...the Deuteronomists were just trying to vaccinate their culture against the cult prostitutes of Asherah that were spreading around the Sumerian free-thinking virus engendered by the nam-shub of Enki. Aren't you glad you asked?" Actually, yes! Hmmm.... weird, but interesting. Okay, so what's a nam-shub?

"...Actually, I'd have to take issue with that. The Judaic laws of right-living were deeply entwined with their religious life." Okay, okay. I'll back down on that one - mostly because I remembered that for the Jewish, following the dietary laws was as much an act of worship as going to church.

"Here we come to a very biased paragraph: the one that starts "To this day, Judaism itself and its family of offshoot religions..."

What's odd is that I agree with what you had to say about this statement. My complaint is that instead of saying "The Catholic Church" or "Presbyterians" or "Baptists" you said "Modern Western religions." There's more Christian sects and cults in America than flies on - well, you know. Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans and Methodists were imported from England, but they're just a drop in the bucket. Quakers, Shakers, the Amish, etc. Then there are those sects of Christianity that evolved because of a doctrine split - I grew up in The Disciples of Christ Christian Church. And as for the mainstream religions, they've changed their tone over the years - didn't the pope make a public apology for the crimes the Catholic Church has commited against humanity? Or did I dream that? I don't remember the "One True Church" statement, but it wouldn't surprise me. After all, Christianity is monotheistic - and if a Catholic's "ultimate conception of reality" is different from a Baptist's, then obviously they're worshipping different gods. This is where Christianity descends into absurdity, if you ask me.

As for the "Modern" - Are we talking modern like within the last two hundred years, or modern as in Anno Domini? I think that needs some clarification, because as I recall, the only ones killing each other for their god right now are the Iraqis and Iranians. Modern Western religions have replaced animal sacrifices with potluck dinners, and the last crusade was Billy Graham's. (Ick!) They still engage in ritual cannibalism, but I think it's a little too flip to say they're afraid of being thrown into a burning pit if they don't engage in the ritual. It's more of a recognition ceremony "Whosoever believes in me, take this bread and this wine..." Rather like the drawing of icthus in the sand.

"...a cruel and vengeful God isn't such a far-out concept, if he's any reflection of the universe he supposedly created (or vice-versa) which is, when you think about it, infinitely black, empty, cold, random, chaotic, and hostile to human existence (apart from this one tiny corner of it)."

If there is a God, I'm not sure that he could be considered cruel and vengeful - the universe IS hostile, but only if you're human. I'm human, so if there was a God, yeah, I'd kick him in the balls, but that's just me.

"I thought he deserved his own mention...."

With further reflection, yeah, I guess he could be considered a deity. My own personal bias is rearing its ugly head. The irony has always flabbergasted me - instead of freeing his people from the dominion of the church, he created a whole new church to dominate the people. What's left of him is undoubtedly spinning - wherever it ended up.

"I thought we had him on videotape shooting fireballs out of his ass."

Hee, hee! I'd like to see that. Well, okay. So I meant to say: no BIBLICAL evidence to support the statement.

I've always thought that the gnostics had it right. I think that's what J.C. intended all along when he said "we are all sons and daughters of God."

I've appreciated the long but thorough response to my posting - I want you to know that this a very good article, but it still falls in my "too biased" category. It's too bad we don't have a philosophy section in the Guide.

Now I'm going to go watch Life of Brian again.

Message for God:

When you in your infinite wisdom have had enough of all this irreverence, sacrilege and blasphemy, and decide in your displeasure to destroy the entire h2g2 site and its members in an incandescent display of your almighty power, please remember O Lord those of us who are but innocent and believing bystanders.

Beseechingly,

Walter.

My apologies. The part of my brain that controls writing ignored other parts of my brain while doing so. My criticism was only directed at the part of the article about Yahweh/God. Also some of the adjectives I used weren't the best.

Anyway, what I meant by 'shallow' is that the most significant quote in the piece is from Michael Palin. I know it's tongue-in-cheek, but it reflects badly on any argument or information being presented elsewhere.

'God had gotten into the spinach at the time'. Why take the rest of the article seriously after that? OK, there is a lot of information in the article but the writer just shoots himself/herself in the foot by suggesting that the Jews believed they would be 'damned by this supreme reality' if they ate shellfish. That injunction, as with most other injunctions of the time, is about tribal law and hygiene in a desert, not about God.

The sentence that begins 'Modern Western religions hold that God created the universe...' is facetious and ignores whatever Jesus had to say on the subject.

And Fragilis, you can actually take a stance of pure scientific detachment when writing about God. You can do what Twophlag Gargleblap did for a significant portion of his/her article and tell us what the main perceptions of God have been. You don't have to comment on the relative merits of these perceptions. The bias of the article is, if anything, in the fact that only Yahweh really gets sneered at.

I really don't see the point in having an edited Guide entry that people are going to argue over endlessly.